Hi, I tried also with cmake in 3.7.3 compilation and I have the same thing. So, in your opinion, is it better to remove some instances in my benchmarks or to use 3.7.3 version ?
Best Regards, Mohamed REZGUI 2013/2/26 Christian Schulte <cschu...@kth.se> > Hi,**** > > ** ** > > I just tried myself and there is indeed a big bug somewhere. It appears to > be in the flatzinc stuff and not only due to the branching, one can see > that by the difference in number of nodes explored per second (it looks it > also has a memory leak of epic proportions and prints random messages on > the screen). I checked the base Gecode stuff and there everything is fine, > the trunk is in most cases slightly faster.**** > > ** ** > > But as said, it’s the trunk ;-)**** > > ** ** > > Cheers**** > > Christian**** > > ** ** > > --**** > > Christian Schulte, www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Mohamed Rezgui [mailto:kyo.al...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:49 PM > *To:* victor.zverov...@gmail.com > *Cc:* cschu...@kth.se; users@gecode.org > *Subject:* Re: [gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances**** > > ** ** > > Hi Victor,**** > > ** ** > > thank you, I dit it but no speed up come. As Christian Schulte says : it > rather the default strategy is bad.**** > > I hope the new version (4.0) comes soon ^^.**** > > ** ** > > Thank you for your attention ^^**** > > Best regards,**** > > Mohamed REZGUI**** > > ** ** > > 2013/2/26 victor.zverov...@gmail.com <victor.zverov...@gmail.com>**** > > CMake supports different build types, make sure that you use the Release > one to enable optimizations and disable asserts and debug info. You can do > it at configuration time with the following command:**** > > ** ** > > cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release**** > > ** ** > > HTH,**** > > Victor**** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Mohamed Rezgui <kyo.al...@gmail.com> > wrote:**** > > OK so I will work with gecode 3.7.3. **** > > ** ** > > I just compile the revision with cmake and I use gecode 3.7.3 from > download section of the official website. **** > > I will see the flags used in compilation. **** > > ** ** > > Thank you for all ^^**** > > Best Regards,**** > > Mohamed REZGUI**** > > ** ** > > 2013/2/26 Christian Schulte <cschu...@kth.se>**** > > That's what happens when you use the trunk, you should never, because, > yes, it is the trunk and not a release ;-)**** > > **** > > The difference is easy to explain though. The instance you have chosen > does not have a search annotation in it, so Gecode picks some default > search (which for this type of problems is a desaster anyway). And we just > changed the default search behavior for the upcoming Gecode 4.**** > > **** > > But then there is another observation: Did you compile both versions with > exactly the same flags? I doubt. Please check this.**** > > **** > > Christian**** > > **** > > --**** > > Christian Schulte, Professor of Computer Science, KTH, > www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/**** > > **** > > *From:* users-boun...@gecode.org [mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] *On > Behalf Of *Mohamed Rezgui > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:31 PM > *To:* users@gecode.org > *Subject:* [gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances**** > > **** > > Hi, **** > > **** > > I made benchmark with the attached instance > (2DLevelPacking_Class5_20_6.fzn) from the minizinc challenges with the > latest version of gecode revision 13418 in release mode.**** > > **** > > When I compare performances between this version and the 3.7.3 version of > gecode, I am so surprised !!!.**** > > Gecode 3.7.3 is faster than the latest revision !!!**** > > **** > > I just use the parameter -s for stats :**** > > ---> gecode/bin/fz -s 2DLevelPacking_Class5_20_6.fzn**** > > **** > > Use of E7-4870 Intel processor**** > > **** > > Benchmarks with gecode rev13418 :**** > > **** > > %% runtime: 2594.74 (2594737 ms)**** > > %% solvetime: 2594.72 (2594718 ms)**** > > %% workers: 1**** > > %% type search: bab**** > > %% solutions: 1**** > > %% objective: 9**** > > %% variables: 801**** > > %% propagators: 70**** > > %% propagations: 22306041**** > > %% nodes: 1564742**** > > %% failures: 702986**** > > %% restarts: 0**** > > %% peak depth: 51**** > > %% peak memory: 838 KB**** > > **** > > Benchmarks with gecode 3.7.3 :**** > > %% runtime: 32.394 (32394.264 ms)**** > > %% solvetime: 32.384 (32384.895 ms)**** > > %% workers: 1**** > > %% type search: bab**** > > %% solutions: 1**** > > %% variables: 801**** > > %% objective: 9**** > > %% propagators: 70**** > > %% propagations: 23159635**** > > %% nodes: 3114256**** > > %% failures: 1557118**** > > %% peak depth: 53**** > > %% peak memory: 2831 KB**** > > **** > > Can you help me about that ???**** > > Is it better that I work with 3.7.3 version ??? **** > > Thank you for your attention.**** > > **** > > -- > Best Regards,**** > > Mohamed REZGUI**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > Gecode users mailing list > users@gecode.org > https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users**** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Cordialement,**** > > Mohamed REZGUI**** >
_______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list users@gecode.org https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
